Offering a conservative counterbalance to the extreme left-coast liberalism of The Huffington Post

Saturday, May 9, 2015

TRICK OR TREASON - TAKE YOUR PICK !!!

!!!!

How the Clintons Get Away With It

The Clintons are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption.

Photo:
Martin Kozlowski

By

Peggy Noonan

May 7, 2015 5:48 p.m. ET

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

.

.

.

I have read the Peter Schweizer book “ Clinton Cash: The Untold
Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill
and Hillary Rich.” It is something. Because it is heavily researched
and reported and soberly analyzed, it is a highly effective takedown.
Because its tone is modest—Mr. Schweizer doesn’t pretend to more than he
has, or take wild interpretive leaps—it is believable.
.
By the
end I was certain of two things. A formal investigation, from Congress
or the Justice Department, is needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s
State Department functioned, at least to some degree and in some cases,
as a pay-for-play operation and whether the Clinton Foundation has
functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic
slush fund.
.
I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except
Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the
Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are
protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption.
It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a
spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial,
and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car,
rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you
always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and
no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde
do. No one else cares, why should I?”
.
Mr. Schweizer announces
upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior.
There is no memo that says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any
issues regarding Country A, I want you to know country A just gave my
husband $750,000 for a speech, so give them what they want.” Even if
Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no such memo would be found.
(Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be discerned.)
.
Mr.
Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the
Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and
financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S.
political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the
Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has
even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of
the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public
office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and
unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been
paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on
Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.
.
From 2001 through 2012
Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of
millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she
saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of
understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to
State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the
foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct
contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons
accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.”
Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes
of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not
involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules
and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are
lax.
.
How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making
speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise
man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or
associates who happened to have business interests pending in these
countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile,
bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or
approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator
or secretary of state.”
Mr. Schweizer tells a story with
national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits,
coveted by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton
meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory
character in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a
Canadian mining tycoon named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some
mines. Then the deal was held up. A Kazakh official later said Sen.
Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what he wanted.
.
Soon
after, he gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr.
Giustra’s company merged with a South African concern called Uranium
One. Shareholders later wrote millions of dollars in checks to the
Clinton Foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment of $100 million
to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.
.
It
doesn’t end there. When Hillary was secretary of state, Russia moved
for a bigger piece of the world uranium market. The Russians wanted to
acquire Uranium One, which had significant holdings in the U.S. That
meant the acquisition would require federal approval. Many had
reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in
America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that
had to sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the
foundation. The deal was approved. The result? “Half of projected
American uranium production” was “transferred to a private company
controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it outright.
.
What would a man like Vladimir Putin
think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d
think it deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when
we lecture him on morals?
.
Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of
the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in
that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political
machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.”
The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS
suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a
middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick
children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s
Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It
employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those
who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The
Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards
of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least
four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted
of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”
.
There’s more. Mrs. Clinton has yet to address any of it.
.
If the book is true—if it’s half-true—it is a dirty story.
.
.
It
would be good if the public, the Democratic Party and the Washington
political class would register some horror, or at least dismay.
.
I
write on the eve of the 70th anniversary of V-E Day, May 8, 1945.
America had just saved the world. The leaders of the world respected
us—a great people led by tough men. What do they think now? Scary to
think, isn’t it?

Forget
about making any comparisons to any other political figure or opposite
party illegal/immoral activities (I personally think all politicians are
pretty much the same when it comes to selling out for personal gain).
But let's just stay focused on the actual history of this person and ask
for an in-depth investigation and report of all the things we know she
has been involved with in the past. I don't care if it is no worse or
equal to any of her contemporaries. Does that make her actions
acceptable or permissible? Hey, investigate all of them and if none can
pass a scrutiny for ethics, how about we keep looking for one that can?
How does the standard "she's no worse than anyone else previously
elected or currently running" make her OK to elect???? This country is
too far gone to salvage.

I
think if James Webb gets into the race, the comparison between him and
the Clintons would assure him of the nomination. I am an Independent who
would vote for him. He has talked the talk and walked the walk.

Bonnie
and Clyde? That's absolutely an absurd comparison. Clyde spent
several years in prison. They were not acquitted of anything. They
were both shot in a law enforcement ambush. Bonnie was 23 and Clyde 25
when they died. How Peggy can compare their brief career with the
Clintons' is beyond me.

The
best way to not let the Clintons get away with corruption is to pulse
rather than saturate media with their faults nonstop. Americans who do
not view themselves as hard core right wing, and who are not fans of the
Clintons, need positive forward looking alternatives. If the opinion
pages obsess on Clinton, then you have nothing to showcase. You want to
mention the Clintons in footnotes or completely avoid mentioning them.
Try it, get some fresh air, stop and smell the roses.

For
all that's been written about the Clintons recently, they're still
standing and they'll continue to stand all the way to the steps of the
Capitol on Jan 20. This latest corruption has happened early on in the
campaign, so by this time next year, no one will care or remember.

I
reconnected a few yrs ago via FB w/some grammar school chums.
Unfortunately, some of the gals think Hillary walks on water, and "oh,
what she's going through." Hill's acolytes and sycophants are getting
the job done from what I can tell. Create just enough (un)reasonable
doubt. Remember, there's not a "shred of evidence."

The
Dems are sticking by her because they owe her for 2008, especially
those who voted for Preezy, and now wish they could press their own
reset button.

The FBI's been neutered, it's a shell of
itself. DOJ is under Holder #2, the Republicans are in charge of
Hse/Sen in name only, so, seriously folks, you think Hills and Wills
will meet any justice? Not in this lifetime.

How about Justice Department look into this instead of inappropriately
inserting itself into city police actions involving black perpetrators.
The federal government has no business in local proceedings. However,
it is entirely appropriate and even imperative that they
pursue allegations of corruption by a federal official - Secretary of
State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Who will force Justice
to investigate and when will they demand action?

As long as a progressive liberal toes the party line -- any and all
other behavior is OK. It is not a requirement to be honest or trust
worthy. As long as your ideology is politically correct anything is
acceptable.

"America had just saved the world." True, but the world has changed
dramatically since then, so much so, that cretins crawling from under
dank rocks, namely William Jefferson and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are
stars, actually no - make that, superstars - of America's political
system. She might be a lock for the Dem nomination for president. But
allow me to sketch a scenario: Bill Clinton, despite being a former
President, is unworthy of respect. Let's go below decks on a deployed
USN nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, where a maintenance crew
feverishly is trying to return an E/F-18-G Growler aircraft to flying
condition. Lacking this aircraft, the wing commander cannot implement
strategy to protect the airborne tanker supporting the fighters and
other carrier air wing assets. Bill, and Hillary too for that matter,
strut, as they are known to do, preening, waiting for respect. Each of
them will get a wrench, a 12-inch at least, pointed straight at their
teeth. We're busy here, go away.

The
Clintons have always known how to fight using Muhamad Allies' strategy
of Rope-a-Dope! They just wait on the ropes, being pummeled, not
fighting back, just ducking and weaving, until the public gets bored
with the story and something else occupies the news cycle. Then they
come out swinging with every liberal reporter in the nation swinging
left and right hooks for them. The average Joe is just overwhelmed at
the onslaught.

" Of course the Clintons are crooks, but their robbing for me" goes the ethics of the mass of Democratic voters.

This
is the net results of telling folks for 50 years that the rich are
robbing them. The sad thruth is: The Democratic party has been robbing
them of far more than money; they steal opportunity, and independence,
and leave you with them as your only means of survival.

Americans
will vote for a lovable rascal time and time again. Our history is
full of names like Boss Tweed, Budd Dwyer, Ray Blanton, Edwin Edwards,
Huey Long, Earl Long, Spiro Agnew, Carroll Hubbard, James Traficant,
Duke Cunningham. Four of the last seven governors of Illinois...
Otto Kerner, George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, Dan Walker....went to
prison. The Clintons know that if they show their "Robin Hood" face to
the American People, they will give them a pass and as Bill showed us
before, once you are in the Oval Office, its hard to bring you down if
the people like you.

@Richard Seale
Please clarify: Who is the 'lovable rascal?' Surely you're not
referring to Slick Willie &/or his accomplice Benghazi Hillary? If
so , enlighten me. What am I missing? Slick Willie is unquestionably a
world call schmoozer. One should be on DEFCON 1 anywhere in the vicinity
of schmoozers of whatever political stripe. Not a word oozing from
between their lips can be trusted; they care not for any but themselves.
Slick Willie's the gold std for schmoozing. Benghazi Hillary not even
close. Her strength is the sheer magnitude of her uncompromising,
unrelenting hubris.

Whatever might characterize a 'lovable rascal,' the Clintons are as far from it as east is from west.

The
greatest generation gave up their lives and made sacrifices so the next
generation could be greedy and self absorbed. From greatest to
greediest in one generation (baby boomers, I am embarrassed to be one).
The Clintons are the poster children for their generation. Isn't it
amazing that Hillary can be a spokesperson for wealth disparity in the
US, you really can fool most of the people most of the time.

The Clintons have always believed that not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth.
The
real culprits in this fiasco, though, are the mainstream media talking
heads and so called reporters. Hacks like Chuck Todd, George
Stephaopoulos and the NYT would turn a blind eye if the Clintons shot up
a convenience store. Ask yourself how this story would be playing out
if Mr. Schweizer's book named a Rumsfeld or a Cheney as the
protagonists. The DOJ and FBI would already be all over it.

This
is what we've come to? A couple willing to sellout the assets of this
country for their personal gain? This is what my father and uncle fought
for in the Second World War? A Justice Department chomping at the bit
to stir up racial hatred for the political ends of its' boss, while
turning a blind eye at the monumental corruption of his friends? A lack
of moral fortitude and the absence of patriotism is certainly the core
element of being "Ready for Hillary".

This
is not surprising behavior from these Arkansas Grifters. It is just
selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom on steroids. What is somewhat
surprising is how many camp followers, spear carriers, and spear
chuckers (how else to characterize Jimmy C and Lannie D?) rally to
defend the indefensible.

Since it invariably comes up in partisan bickering whose voters are
more knowledgeable, and I linked two youtube videos on Obama voters
downthread, I thought it appropriate to give a fuller account of the
polling done of Obama voters in 2008. Here it is again:

Sadly,
a majority of Americans no longer seem to care about ethics and morals
when evaluating leaders. The Clintons have been engaged in the kind of
behavior outlined in Ms. Noonan's article since their days in Arkansas,
where they perfected the art of the shakedown. If political polls are
any guide, Hillary appears to be on the fast track to being elected
president in 2016. If we thought the Clintons' escapades were heretofore
egregious, their final fling at exercising power will truly embellish
their posterity in the annals of corruption.

Post a Comment

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com